All moon-landing conspiracy theorists refuse to believe that the United States landed on that much-mythologized rock 250,00 miles away in 1969. As to why the rest of us believe that it did happen, moon-landing conspiracy theorists vary in the specifics of their stories. Perhaps the most interesting element of the lore — interesting to cinephiles, at least — holds that Stanley Kubrick, fresh off the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey, secretly shot the landing video seen across America in a studio, later cashing in on the favor by borrowing one of NASA's custom-made Zeiss lenses to shoot 1975's Barry Lyndon.

Kubrick died in 1999, and so can't clear up the matter himself, unless you believe the "confession" video that circulated last year, convincing nobody but the already-convinced. But his daughter Vivian took to Twitter just this month to put the matter to rest herself, embedding an impassioned defense of her father's integrity (and an encouragement to focus on the more plausible abuses of power quite possibly going on right this moment) that goes way beyond 140 characters:

"Vivian Kubrick worked on the set of The Shining with her father where she shot a behind-the-scenes making-of documentary about the film," adds Variety's Lamarco McClendon. "Theorists have purported [Stanley] even used the film to admit to shooting the hoax by leaving behind clues. One such clue was Danny Lloyd wearing an Apollo 11 sweater." The Shining has given rise to a fair few theories, conspiracy and otherwise, of its own, proving that Kubrick fans can get obsessive, watching and re-watching his work while seeking out symbols and patterns, seeing connections and drawing conclusions by building elaborate interpretive structures atop thin evidence. Come to think of it, you'd think they and the moon-landing conspiracy theorists would have a lot to talk about.

As Stanley’s point man for 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, from its New York premiere (see my GUARDIAN article) through the StarCHILD/Ultimate Trip relaunch in 1970 and beyond, and therefore having worked with him intensely through 1969, speaking to him at least once a day, going over detailed distribution and marketing plans, experiencing his meticulous concentration (and humor) collaborating on the specifics needed to perpetuate what was becoming a cultural phenomenon, there was no way he would have had the time and concentration to create and film a fake moon landing as these crackpot theories have proposed.

Should the moon landing we saw been a Kubrick film and if there should have been a
shadow on the flag and flag staff, he would have made sure what we saw was correct.

Vivian Kubrick’s analysis of her father’s artistic integrity can’t be faulted. Remembering her sitting on Stanley’s lap as he edited the 19 minutes from 2001 in the week following its opening— to the daily family lunches we had at Abbot’s Mead when working on CLOCKWORK ORANGE, she was always, even at her young age, astute and direct.
She is her father’s daughter.

Of course the moon landing really happened and of course Kubrick had nothing to do with faking anything. What I am questioning are the actions of the well-known Scientologist Vivian Kubrick whose well-known break with her family gives a new colouring to statements like “She is her father’s daughter”.

Scientologists are encouraged to lie – and often end up breaking the hearts of their parents (as it has been reported Vivian Kubrick did hers) – so let’s not be either too gullable or too sentimental in response to this post.

Clearly, Kubrick had nothing to do with this shoddy hoax. Having said that, if he had, would he endanger anyone he cared for by letting them in on it? So, Vivian’s protestations (while I agree with them in spirit) are nearly irrelevant. And, in any case, the elephant in the room (Thetans, et al) is trumpeting rather loudly over her “voice of reason”.

Speaking of reason: considering the tens of millions of Americans who believe in a bearded, vaguely-Levantine, anus-free Sky Giant (aka Jeezis), I don’t find it either surprising or persuasive that so many Americans also believe(d) that wonderfully-primitive 1960s American technology could achieve what the vastly-more-powerful technology of a dozen industrial nations (including the US! laugh) *still* can’t manage, half a century later! Yes, I once believed in the fairy tale, too (and I’m Science-literate)… but taking a closer look, one day, keeping all of my prejudices at bay… was quite the eye-opener.

FREE UPDATES!

GET OUR DAILY EMAIL

Get the best cultural and educational resources on the web curated for you in a daily email. We never spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

FOLLOW ON SOCIAL MEDIA

About Us

Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.